The court established that in case of contributory negligence where valid insurance policies are absent, liability cannot be imposed on insurers, reaffirming principles of joint liability in compensation awards.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the insurance companies of two vehicles involved in the accident that had occurred on 07.01.2015, wherein, the driver as well as the pillion rider of a two wheeler died.

2. The CMA Nos.533 and 534 of 2025 are filed by the insurer of the motorcycle, in which the deceased persons travelled, challenging the fixation of 40% liability on it.

3. The CMA Nos.2781 and 2799 of 2024 are filed by the insurer of the lorry, challenging the pay and recovery order passed against it on the ground that the insurance policy produced before the Tribunal was a fake policy.

4. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are inter connected, they are taken together for hearing.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

6. The first respondent in CMA No.533 of 2025 and the first respondent in CMA No.2781 of 2024 is referred to as claimant in MCOP No.122 of 2015. The respondents 1 and 2 in CMA No.534 of 2025 and respondents 1 and 2 in CMA No.2799 of 2024 are referred to as claimants in MCOP No.192 of 2015. The claimant in MCOP No.122 of 2015 is the mother of the deceased driver of the two wheeler. The claimants in MCOP No.192 of 2015 are the parents of the deceased pillion rider of the two wheeler. The appellant in CMA No.533 and 534 of 2025 and 7^th respondent in CMA No.2781 and 2799 of 2024 is referred to as insurer of the two wheeler. The appellant in CMA No.2781 and 2799 of 2024 and the third respondent in CMA No.533 of 2025 and fourth respondent in CMA No.534 of 2025 is referred to as insurer of the lorry.

7. It is not in dispute that the son of the claimant in MCOP No.122 of 2015 and son of the claimants in MCOP No.192 of 2015 had travelled in a Yamaha Motorcycle on 07.01.2015 as driver and pillion rider respectively. Their vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company/ appellant in CMA Nos.533 and 534 of 2015 and and 7^th respondent in CMA Nos.2781 and 2799 of 2024. When they were proceeding from Erode to Mullam Parapuu from North to South direction by following traffic rules, a lorry insured with the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company/appellant in CMA No.2781 and 2799 of 2024 and third respondent in CMA No.533 of 2025 and fourth respondent in CMA No.534 of 2025, came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without following the rules and dashed against the two wheeler. As a result of accident, both the driver and the pillion rider were thrown out of the vehicle and they died on the spot. Claiming that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the claim petitions were preferred, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of son of the claimant in MCOP No.122 of 2015 and Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of son of the claimants in MCOP No.192 of 2015.

8. The owner of the lorry filed counter denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was his case that the accident was caused by the negligence on the part of the driver of the two wheeler. The insurer of the lorry also filed counter stating that the driver of the two wheeler also contributed to the accident. It was the specific case of the insurer of the lorry that the lorry involved in the accident was not insured with it and no policy was issued to the lorry involved in the accident.

9. The insurer of the motorcycle filed counter and stated that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It was also stated by the insurer of the motorcycle that the driver of the motorcycle was not the employee